Lipstadt
does not want people to remember
... that the singularly creepy
Anthony Julius oiled his way
around the pressroom floor a few
days later, boasting that his law
firm had done the whole of their
side of the work without
fees--
David Irving

June
16, 2002 (Sunday)Key
West (Florida)

SOMEBODY emails me at 8:25 a.m., "I saw
the awful news in the newspapers today. I
am very sorry to see your courage and
integrity so foully dealt with and such
monstrous injustice dispensed from an
English court." He recommends "John 11:35,
Hebrews 13:8" and I reply: "Sorry, don't
know which newspapers. But I can guess.
Bear with us, I am a Christian too and I
know that things will come out all right."
Somebody else then emails me, "I'm looking
to purchase some of your books. Do you
still work out of your London home? Please
let me know how I can contact you to make
a purchase." I give him our new phone
number in Curzon Street, then instantly
regret it: he may be a mole.

It was today's The Sunday
Telegraph in England which has run
an
item, rather late (it happened over
three weeks ago) on my home of 34 years
having been seized within 48 hours of
losing the latest appeal. It is not
unfriendly, and ends with two rather
off-the-wall quotations from "Professor"
Deborah Lipstadt -- how long before
she gets a knighthood? -- and
Lord Janner a controversial
barrister and member of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews.

Professor Lipstadt last night told
The Telegraph she took no
pleasure in the news that Mr Irving had
lost his home. She said: "This is not
something I can gloat about. It is
Penguin who are pushing for the money,
not myself. I can understand their
reasons. They feel that if they don't
recover the money they are owed on this
case then they would open themselves up
to all sorts of similar actions.

The case brought by Mr Irving and the
subsequent appeal has cost me more than
£1 million. I doubt whether I will
ever get any of that money back."

Lord Janner, the chairman of the
Holocaust Education Trust, said: "I am
pleased that justice has caught up with
him. He deserves everything he
gets."

I
am surprised -- or am I? -- that a
Professor of Religion at a minor American
university can afford one million pounds
($1.5m) to defend herself.

Of course, she is lying yet again. She
does not want people to remember that a
multitude of her greasy friends like ("Sir
") Stephen Spielberg, Edgar J
Bronfman, the American Jewish
Congress et al. stepped forward on
the day of her Pyrrhic victory to boast to
Jewish weeklies, newspapers, and television
media that they, yes they, had provided
her with the largesse, the six million
dollars, that was poured into her side of
the British courtroom in January 2000.

Or that the singularly creepy
Anthoyn Julius oiled his way around
the pressroom floor a few days later,
boasting that his law firm had done the
whole of their side of the work without
fees? And that it was precisely because of
these boasts that the same court refused
to allow her her costs; in fact her
lawyers did not even ask for them?

What a pity we did not get her in the
witness box to confront her with all her
lies. Truth seems to be a very scarce
commodity among her fraternity.

Lord Janner's remarks will rebound upon
his head, that I can predict. One day
Justice may well catch up with him.
His "Holocaust Educational Trust", another
of those well-funded money-sucking quangos
that litter the landscape of London, just
as the political action committees are
strewn across that of Washington DC, is
anything but a charity: Dr John
Fox, a British academic who was a
member of the Trust, though non-Jewish,
resigned in disgust after they held a
secret censorship meeting in November 1991
to explore ways and means of pressurizing
my main British publisher Macmillan
Ltd to abandoned all their remaining
publishing contracts with me.

I HAVE received several comments on the
Sheffield academic Ian
Kershaw's acceptance of a
knighthood for his biography of Adolf
Hitler. Good luck to him, I say, it
will earn you money and invitations, but
not lasting respect. Only hard labour in
the quarries of history does that.
Somebody points out that the BBC
announcement referred no fewer than five
times to his being, uh, "a Catholic": so
that's all right then. No bias there.

I want to stay on top of the
final stage of the court
[Lipstadt] matter. Please
therefore ask the transcribers to
supply, as we are entitled I believe, a
disc (digital) copy of their transcript
and email it to me (and Counsel) as
soon as it arrives. I will then assist
in finding the passages that matter, of
which I have a vivid recall.

Several
correspondents send me a long
feature article published in The
Observer (London) yesterday about
Professor Richard Evans' (left)
plan to publish his book, now back to its
original title of Telling Lies about
Hitler.

The article is written by a Mr Nick
Cohen, and is about as mean and
abusive as can be in the
circumstances.

To all the calumny that the jittery
Mr Justice Gray heaped upon me in
April 2000 Mr Cohen adds many abuses of
his own. For a moment I recall Mr Winston
Churchill's famous pre-war aphorism --
"The world today is full of the most
damnable libels about me, and the really
damnable thing about them is that most of
them are true."

I send this letter to The
Observer:

A
"bullying neo-fascist conman"
repliesNick
Cohen repeats the legend that William
Heinemann, a firm of unquestionable
high reputation, having signed up the
book by Prof. Richard Evans, "bravely
pulped it after Irving threatened to
sue". This just ain't so. I had no
contact with Heinemann either before or
after. They took the decision on the
advice of their own lawyers, and it may
well prove to have saved them a lot of
money.

[Postscript:
Sunday, July 7, 2002: The
Observer does not print
this].

There is only one
thing worse than this kind of public
immolation, about which one knows and
hears, and can reply to; and that is the
hidden smear campaign, against
which one is virtually defenseless.

Some
years back, perhaps five or ten, at any
rate before the days of the Internet, the
politically incorrect anti-Semitic mafia,
of which I am of course now held to be a
Court-appointed, Judge-certified,
officially confirmed, and
in-every-other-respect-too-Leading Member,
was periodically treated to an
over-detailed dossier of allegations of
paedophilia against Mr Greville Janner
(right, outside
the Home Office), as Lord J. was
known in those days. The samizdat dossier
purported to contain sworn statements from
young men that he had sexually abused, and
it urged people to campaign for the
prosecution of this leading and highly
respectworthy personality in London's
Jewish community.

One printer, who happened to bear the
name of one of England's most famous
comedians, produced and circulated
exceedingly well drawn cartoon-strips
conveying much the same message about the
wretched and defenceless Mr Janner. The
cartoons were as offensive, and as
cunningly well drawn, and as obscene, as a
similar publication I had seen about
Anne Frank. I confined both items
to the trash can, virtually unread.

Being English, I assumed, and still
assume, that Mr Janner was innocent. He is
innocent in the eyes of the law until
proven guilty. Since whatever police
inquiries were conducted did not lead to a
prosecution, if indeed any were instituted
at all, that remains the case in
England.

Being English, like being a Christian,
is something of an opiate to ones
primaeval suspicions. I am sorry that Lord
Janner is unable to draw upon the
blessings that ones Christianity
confers.

NOW comes, as said, their Mr Nick
Cohen who accuses me in righteous
horror of having sought to "censor." By
"their", I mean of course that Cohen is
presumably a fellow Jew of theirs. (Let us
be mathematically precise here -- the name
Cohen alone is not enough to go by. I
recall my favourite math professor,
Preidel, lingering long enough on
an equation in pure mathematics containing
an "e" to remark: "-- 'e', which is not,
although it might be, the same as the
exponential coefficient 'e'." A private
joke for pure mathematicians, that).

Preidel was an academic whom I greatly
loved for his teaching ability, at
Imperial College in the late 1950s. Thanks
to him I came to love pure math, to which
I had been a total stranger until the year
before. Had he been a "Sir," my respect
for him would have abated.

I cannot think of a single academic of
lasting distinction whom I met, and who
was knighted: it is a token of political
servility, of correctness. Was Otto
Hahn less of a chemist, or Werner
Heisenberg less of a physicist, for
not being a "Sir"? Professor P M S
Blackett, who taught us elementary
physics, was a noted communist and so God
knows no friend of mine; he was a Nobel
prize winner, and one of our most
distinguished nuclear physicists. The idea
of accepting a knighthood would never have
occurred to him.

I pen this letter to journalist Nick
Cohen at The Observer:

You must learn to be more
subtle, it generates more credibility
(and in your case less anti-semitism).
But perhaps you want more of the
latter -- who can tell? I passed the
article on to the appropriate gentleman
[my Counsel], with this
comment:

That
is as you know real punitive-damages
stuff: Intending to exploit a libel
to increase the profit.
Broome
vs Cassell & another,
1970.
I would have thought that Anthony
Julius and others offering to assist
the publication of a libel by giving
free legal help during the resulting
trial would also be maintenance in
its crudest form: solicitors working
free under such circumstances lay
themselves open to the charge that
they have maintained the action,
right? Of course, Evans may have
subtly toned down the book for the
UK market (and skunks may
fly.)"

Altogether a jolly morning and not much
real work on Churchill's War,
vol.iii done yet.

My London lawyer reports at midday:

I have spoken to the
transcription people this afternoon.
They now have the tapes .... They have
agreed that we may listen to them and
assist in identifying the right
sections and with the transcription.

I reply to him:

Now that the tape cannot be
accidentally "lost", we should ask ...
all others ... to produce and disclose
their own notes of the hearing....

Sunshine here today, five inches of
rain yesterday. A metaphor for
something. The Observer
published a hideous piece of
Irving-bashing yesterday, which I just
read.

SUPPER over at Harpoon Harry's; my knees
are beginning to hurt. Getting older.

June
18, 2002 (Tuesday)Key
West (Florida)

THIS morning a titled London friend
reports to me by email:

Richard Compton-Miller
of The Daily Express just
telephoned. Asked me what Irving's
friends are doing about retrieving his
private papers that are soon to be
auctioned. I said, more importantly,
what are we going to do about
retrieving his home so that free speech
may be permitted to exist in this
country. . . I said Janner's malicious
remark is rich coming from a person
with whom justice has yet to catch up
[. . .]

I mentioned the website informs us
that a final card is to be played
within the next ten days.

Last night, I shook the hand of the
French Ambassador
[to London, M
Daniel Bernard,
right] who was the speaking
guest at the European-Atlantic Group.
During question time he referred to
"not America, but the Entity within
America". Said he'd 'suffered' for his
remark [at a
private dinner he referred to Israel as
"that sh*tty little country" which was
in his view to blame for all the
present world unrest].

I led the applause following these
remarks. He warmly kissed me on both
cheeks goodnight and handed me the
flowers they'd presented him as he
departed.

I reply to her with an Anglicism: "You
are a brick; well, not red, not square,
and not heavy, but a brick all the same."
Another correspondent, an American, writes
words of embarrassing fulsomeness having
read the Cohen article, and rather mixing
his historical metaphors: "You must be the
Joan of Arc of today, the way the Jews
have done and continue to do everything
possible to discredit a life's work. You
truly have them frightened. All they like
is burning you at the stake."